Category talk:Expanded universe
Do we have an official line on what is EU? I'm thinking specifically of the prequels - I've heard people say that they are/aren't EU at different places - the prequel pages themselves don't have the EU icon at the top, but Tomas Sherek does, presumably for his part in the S4 prequel. And they're not in the EU section of the appearances template. I'd like to add an explanation of what is EU to the intro line of this category page, as I'm a tad unclear myself--Acer4666 18:59, April 26, 2011 (UTC) : The only argument that the prequels are EU probably goes something like "well they were on DVDs, and not on TV". Unless I'm missing something quite significant, I reject that concept and have always considered any live action content with the 24 series actors to be completely equal to any given episode. On those grounds I vote we remove the EU on Sherek's page. 04:28, April 27, 2011 (UTC) :: I disagree. Anything that's not a TV episode or Redemption is "expanding" upon the "universe." The Prequels, Debrief, Chloe's Arrest, The Rookie and Conspiracy are all part of the expanded universe of the show, clearly not intended to be mandatory viewing. Otherwise they wouldn't be relegated to the "special features" on the DVD sets. What other definition of "expanded universe" could there possibly be? I'm sure 99% of the people who've ever watched 24 have never even seen any of them. --proudhug 21:34, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ::: I don't really have any strong view on this - Jon Cassar described the first prequel as something to get fans set up for season 4 and keep them interested, and really that's all redemption was while the writer's strike was on. (i don't believe the jack in africa story was ever really gonna be the start of series 7, there's no way they couldve had him sat on a plane for 7 episodes). ::: I think it's arbitrary however you define it, as the necessity of viewing (for the storlyine as a whole) or the media on which it was released aren't surefire ways to say what is and isn't main stuff. As I said, it seems that on the wiki at the moment (judging by what is where and what icons are where) the view, in the main, seems to be "if it's got Jack in it's universe, if it ain't it's expanded"--Acer4666 23:04, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :::(referring to live action stuff) (and excluding that weird advert thing)--Acer4666 23:05, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :: Proudhug I've never understood your interpretation of "expanded universe"! It's probably the one thing we disagree about most. The way I see it is the way everyone I know personally defines "spin-offs". Anything with Kiefer that is live action is the primary 24-verse. (It's made by the same people and it has Kiefer acting on camera in it. That's all that matters.) All the rest of it (mini-series, games, comics, books...) it's quite clearly extra stuff that is licensed spin-offs. They are related, but separate, continuities. The most obvious example supporting this is the brow-furrowing litany of screaming contradictions between Findings and the Nightfall comic. None of us have the right to retcon one over the other; retcons are done by the original content creators (the TV show runners), and since they were involved in neither that comic nor that novel, both are in separate continuities. Look at Max. Wayne says he was arrested, but the ridiculous Playstation game has him getting killed. These two separate accounts are not reconcilable. "The Game" never happened in the continuity of the show, plain and simple. It's non-canon. And I'm not alone in this view. None of the guys I've ever known who followed 24 (outside this project) ever took any of the stuff which I have described as "spin-offs" here seriously either, and for the same reasons as me. It's the same way with other universes of fiction. 20:57, May 14, 2011 (UTC) Have to disagree with you there. No one has any right to say what is and what's not canon save for the creators. Many people dislike Season 6. Is it non canon? No, it's not. Many dislike the game. Is is non canon? Again, no. And since it was made with help from the show's writers, there's more credibility to it. I may dislike certain things, but they're all canon to me because I'm nota writer. So The Game is, regardless of personal feelings, canon. --ASHPD24 21:30, May 14, 2011 (UTC) :: ASHPD24, none of that factors in because you (or anyone else, really) haven't addressed the contradiction. Max wasn't killed in the show universe, but he was killed in the game. They are irreconcilable continuities, so the show takes precedence. The Game is canon for you and others because of personal feelings about the fact that some show people were involved. But that is an OOU detail. When it comes to IU, the Game diverges from the show, and that's all that matters. : I'm not exactly sure what you're even arguing here, Rook. This isn't a discussion about what's canon, but rather what's considered EU. The term "expanded universe" doesn't have anything to do with canonicity. It merely differentiates between the TV series and all of the extra stuff. The Star Wars universe for example, explicitly includes nearly all of its EU as canon, not just the stuff that has Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker in it, or the stuff that George Lucas wrote. : If you ask anyone what "24" is, they're going to answer that it's a TV show. But like many TV shows, it's got a bunch of extra side stories spanning numerous media for the fans to enjoy outside of watching it on TV that add depth to the universe 24 takes place in. Plain and simple, there's the 24 TV show, and then there's everything else. Regardless of content, continuity or quality, by definition, "everything else" is the Expanded Universe. Your argument about people "not taking this stuff seriously" actually sort of supports this idea. Most people who watch 24 haven't seen any of the DVD special features, yet aren't confused watching the show, because it's EU material. This doesn't mean they're "bad" or "unofficial," just "extra." : That said, I understand that you harbor personal derision for most of 24's EU, but that doesn't mean we throw around arbitrary definitions of either EU or canon based solely on personal preference. "Anything with Kiefer that is live action" is a laughable definition of anything. So some of the DVD special features are good and some aren't? The prequels for seasons 4-6 are okay, but "Chloe's Arrest," "The Rookie" and "Conspiracy" aren't? Kiefer Sutherland's live-action face doesn't have some magical ability to make things worthy. I mean you don't honestly believe that if Kiefer Sutherland had left the series after season 6 and the rest of the seasons centered around an ensemble cast at CTU stopping terrorist attacks, that they would be non-canon. --proudhug 00:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :: There's nothing laughable about it at all. What is laughable is The Rookie and Conspiracy (zing). :: Look my whole point here is that editors are deciding what is retconned and what is canon and what isn't. I guess we can agree on whatever is "EU" because that term is pretty much useless in the sense you're using it. Most fans of a fictional continuity use "EU" in the same sense as "non-canon". That's what we should do here too but instead we're hacking stuff up into component details and saying absurd things like "The Game is canonical, even the critical part that contradicts the show utterly, and oh yeah we'll ignore our own policies about canon and say Max is dead to keep it that way... and also Findings is true ''except the gads of details that were contradicted by a comic book."'' Is everyone really so blind not to notice that their own personal feelings about some show people being involved in the Game makes them believe its canonical? when the IU details that actually matter are irreconcilable? And I'm the one being accused of personal feelings because of a brief anecdote at the end of my post. Our system is broken here but since everyone wants to mince words and play semantics instead of looking at the real problem, I'm actually quite fine with ignoring it and working on other things at this project. 00:46, May 15, 2011 (UTC) : And my whole point here is that you're arguing something completely off-topic. Acer was asking what is considered EU and I'm just clarifying that. You're seemingly trying to argue that EU = non-canon and therefore is despicable and has no place here. Whether this is true or not has nothing to do with the discussion. : I think a big problem for you here is that since you equate EU with non-canon, and non-canon with shit, you're arriving at a conflict when you come across "good" EU stuff like the DVD features, so the only way to rationalize it is to not consider it EU. I'm confused by your statement that "my" use of the term EU is useless, because A) it reconciles the conflict you're having with wanting to include certain extra stories but not others, and B) that's just what the definition of the term is! I mean, how is categorizing all of the non-TV extra story material useless? : I understand most franchises probably don't consider EU material canon, but lots do, including Star Wars, Babylon 5 and the Buffyverse. The purpose of the EU is to provide extra stories for fans that aren't "required reading." Again, this is independent of their quality or their level of consistency with the show. Some EU material can be canonical or while others are non-canonical (or even both within the same work of fiction), but they don't have to all be one or the other. That would render the term useless, since it would be indistinguishable from non-canon. Which it isn't. : And as for the Max discussion, that's best carried on at Talk:Max. --proudhug 01:26, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :: I think proudhug's definition of EU does make sense - the only problem for me, is that the appearances templates would have to change to move all the debriefs/prequels/chloe's arrest down to the EU section, rather than have them "part" of their respective seasons. I think atm the appearances template looks nice as it is, and links the prequels to the seasons (treating them as "episode 0" as it were), and much like Redemption fits as a prologue (/prequel to use the official misnomer) to season 7, the others fit in a very defined place in the seasons. I think if we define EU as everything except tv episodes and Redemption, then we'd have to make that change to appearances template--Acer4666 10:04, May 15, 2011 (UTC) : I don't see a problem with keeping the templates as they are. Some of the EU does pertain to a particular day, so it makes sense to me. As a matter of fact, I preferred it when we included Findings at CTU and Conspiracy in the templates, despite their EU status. Maybe we could rename the EU template as "Additional Expanded Universe" or "Other Days" something, or remove a title altogether. --proudhug 12:30, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :: The definition you're laying out of EU is fine. I'll move the discussion about canon and continuities over to Max like you recommend too. Although my distaste for some of the EU content is obvious, I do try to leave it at the door as best as possible (and despite appearances!). :: As for the template, it's just a template and it doesn't make any major statements about content, so we don't have to apply strict rules to it. I'll stick "more" over there, akin to Proudhug's suggestion. 23:44, May 15, 2011 (UTC) : Now that I think about it, it seems ridiculous to have the template renamed. I'll change it back if no one objects. --proudhug 17:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :: I agree "more expanded universe" doesn't really work, but could we call it "other days", or something? I just feel calling it expanded universe indicates "this stuff is eu, other stuff isn't".--Acer4666 17:31, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : I disagree. As long as all of the stuff in the table is EU, it's an accurate heading. It doesn't imply that all of the EU stuff is there, just that all of the stuff that's there is EU. --proudhug 18:14, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :: I know it's technically accurate (and to use an extreme example, just as saying "i hate black people" technically isn't racist, as long as there is more than one black person you hate). But I think that is one of the things that has caused the confusion over this issue in the past. Buut, I don't especially mind strongly either way, so you can keep it how it was if you want--Acer4666 18:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : It's the same rationale we use with the unnamed civilians page. It's not all the unnamed civilians, just the ones that don't fit into any other headings. It would be silly to call it "More unnamed civilians." --proudhug 18:44, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :: To make the template consistent, could we rename the "Day X" sections into "Season X"? Really, the season 4 prequel didn't happen during day 4, whereas it could be argued to be part of season 4. Also, I think all the headings should be OOU, whereas Day X is an attempt at IU (sort of, etc.)--Acer4666 18:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : I see what you're saying, but it's not necessarily true. In an OOU sense, the "prequels" were still released to pertain to their respective IU "Days". But if you think there's a strong enough argument to change the headings from Day to Season, I won't argue. : And since we're on the topic, what are your thoughts on restoring things like Findings at CTU, Conspiracy and Operations Instinct and Hero to the templates they directly pertain to? --proudhug 19:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I think in spirit, yes it's a good idea, as long it looks good visually (I'm just wondering about where the "simultaneous" ones like operation hero and instinct would go, as s7 has a prologue and s8 has an epilogue) so I think I'd wanna see what it'd look like before a definite yes.--Acer4666 19:19, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : I think they'd look fine at the bottom, and in the case of D8, both items can be centered at the bottom, each being colspan=3. --proudhug 19:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC)